James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
Posted on 11/24/2007 7:55:42 AM PST by Leisler
Mary-Ellen Manning, a member of the Gov.'s Councilor which must give final approval to judicial nominations, said the nominating panel should be disbanded.
"The governor should be held accountable for his judicial picks," she said. "It's his biggest legacy."
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
"David Yas, publisher and editor-in-chief of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly, said Romney is trying to replace members of the committee with individuals more in tune with himself.
"He's slowly disbanding this system that he created," said Yas. "He's stacking the (panel) with certain people to get the wheels turning the way he wants them to."
Well, Mitt wanted to pursue a conservative agenda - namely, increasing gender diversity among his nominees:
Romney names 4 women to bench Seen as response to call for diversity
Governor Mitt Romney, under pressure to name more women to the bench, yesterday nominated three current or former prosecutors and a top official from the Menino administration in what aides boasted is the largest number of female candidates ever brought forward at once
- snip -
Until yesterday, just 13 of Romney's 43 recommendations for the judiciary were women, sparking criticism from groups that said he should appoint more. Recently, Romney has pushed to appoint more female and minority judges, and last month he put the spotlight on the Judicial Nominating Commission, the state panel that screens potential judges, for failing to forward more candidates to his office.
''The governor felt he wasn't getting enough female and minority candidates," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. ''The governor is interested in making sure that appointments to the bench, to the extent possible, reflect the diversity of the community at large."
Tuttman and Hopkins are registered Democrats. Lyons is a Republican. Wright is registered as unaffiliated with any political party.
- snip -
Romney has argued that political views don't matter when it comes to enforcing the law.
-----------
So much for the claims of the Mitt boosters that Mitt had the pick forced upon him by the Judicial Nominating Commission. Sounds like it was the other way around.
Why not read the whole article? It was set up to replace a system of rampant cronyism in which political donors had first dibs. He thought it was moving too slowly so the “replace members of the committee with individuals more in tune with himself” could just as well refer to procedural questions as with ideology. And the article doesn’t say whether he succeeded. There’s more to the story, but the effort to pin the double murder on Romney directly through a chain of indirect linkages is obviously a hit-job. Just how much blame he deserves cannot be determined from this article. But critical judgment demands that one treat the whole attack on him with a large dose of suspicion. If in the end he can justly be blamed for this guy being let go and murdering, fine and dandy. But so far the “evidence” has been inconclusive and the motives of those trying to stretch the evidence are rather transparent.
Demagoguery lives.
Wrong. Read my post #3:
Until yesterday, just 13 of Romney's 43 recommendations for the judiciary were women, sparking criticism from groups that said he should appoint more. Recently, Romney has pushed to appoint more female and minority judges, and last month he put the spotlight on the Judicial Nominating Commission, the state panel that screens potential judges, for failing to forward more candidates to his office.
''The governor felt he wasn't getting enough female and minority candidates," said Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom. ''The governor is interested in making sure that appointments to the bench, to the extent possible, reflect the diversity of the community at large."
- snip -
Romney has argued that political views don't matter when it comes to enforcing the law.
Do we REALLY want a guy nominating 200 federal judges over four years who argues that "political views don't matter when it comes to enforcing the law?"
I don't.
And this wasn't long ago. This was towards the end of Romney's one term as governor.
Well, my only comment is to remind us that the next POTUS will probably be looking at 4 SCOTUS nominations.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt, either.
So I wonder what the next tack is now that it has been shown that Romney, far from having this judge pushed down his throat by the Judicial Nominating Commission, pushed to have two female DEMOCRAT judges put forward in the name of diversity. And his aides crowed about it afterwards.
Well, my only comment is to remind us that the next POTUS will probably be looking at 4 SCOTUS nominations.
Which is why I don't want a guy as the GOP nominee who believes this:
Romney has argued that political views don't matter when it comes to enforcing the law.
Like I said, I had been reading the Mitt defenders and they gave an impression that Mitt was a locked in passive recipient of the Judges Panel. Not true. Mitt set the whole thing up...and in typical Mitt fashion, he flipped and then riped down the whole thing that he himself set up.
Anyways, Mitt was waist high deep in picking judges. Tuttman is a product of his world class managerial experience.
Basically, Mitt waded in, Wonked it into his system, appointed liberals, Democrats and Gays, and then when he thought about it and wanted to be President, like a dog with an old stinky bone, he started in messing with his own system. Tuttman was a political twofer form Mitt. Female and a prosecutor. Albeit incompetent. But what the heck, symbolic is symbolic.
Anyways, the cover story of Mitt the Victim is over.
James Carville: "It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing. Romney is an ascendant guy."
Putting Mitt Romney in charge of picking federal judges would be an exhibition of mass psychosis on the part of Republicans.
Mitt, in both halves, used and abused the process. First to curry favor with Democrats, and later to buff up HIS reputation.
Originally, he said, he designed, built and executive ordered the Judaical process to weed out hacks and crony's. (In Massachusetts that means the other guys appointees.) But when Mitt gets control, he does the same thing, only ideologically. First liberal Democrats, and then later a desperate grab for anyone with less lefty record, regardless of competence.
In short, in a vital process, Mitt screwed the whole thing, twice, himself.
It is confusing, but this always happens to Mitt. Not my fault. You don’t understand. That was then, this was now...yada, yada, yada.
Good analysis.
But that is not going to happen.
That’s why there are hotlinks.
I assume freepers are adults.
Also in post 9 I told people to read the links.
Further boston.co is excerpted.
Got anymore paraoia?
They sometimes post the entire story in order to get the thread pulled since we are not supposed to post the whole thing.
Its happened before.
Yep. Back-door censorship, a specialty.
So, let's see if we can clear up Mitt's World Class, One Time Only, Managerial Sills in public office.
First he says he wants hacks out of the Judicial Process. So he changes the 30 year old system. Strike one. Now it's his. Then he shoves a knife in the back of his own Republican party members, and reaches out to appoint Democrats and gays over qualified Republicans. (This is really telling. Is he, having a record of asking for support, work and effort, going to do this to Republicans nationally? He now has a record of doing it at the state level.)Strike two. However he still doesn't have enough women and minorities, so he changes his own process to get them. Strike Three and at the end he is hacking appointments left and right.
But other than that, he's awesome. Super bright and shiny. A government light upon the dark waters of modern politics. Or, he's confused, or opportunist, or incompetent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.